The "Missing link"

[peace4ever]

A link in a chain is always something in the middle linking one end of a chain to the other. But since scientists don't know who the common ancestor is, then they only have one end of the chain, namely, humans, not both. So until they know who the common ancestor is, they can't possibly know what the links of the chain lead to on the other end!

Thus, they find any bones they want to and claim it's the missing link. the latest "missing link" looks more like a lizard than a human. So are they now claiming that a giant lizard was the common ancestor? Or, since they don't know who the common ancestor is, because he's as imaginary as each individual imagination then they can claim that the bones of any animal is the common ancestor? Or can they just plain claim anything they want to since the world believes they're infallible gods because they have degrees? I suspect it's the latter.

 

[Mallon]

1) Evolutionary scientists (alas, not the media) stopped talking about "chains" of being a hundred years ago. Descend with modification produces bushes, not chains.
2) There is no single "missing link" or common ancestor. Given the nested hierarchical nature of life, humans share common ancestors with successive outgroups, including apes, placentals, mammals, synapsids, amniotes, vertebrates, etc., etc., etc.
Which lizard-like "missing link" are you referring to, specifically?

 

[Dark_Lite]

Probably the Darwinius fossil.

 

[peace4ever]

1) Evolutionary scientists (alas, not the media) stopped talking about "chains" of being a hundred years ago. Descend with modification produces bushes, not chains.
2) There is no single "missing link" or common ancestor. Given the nested hierarchical nature of life, humans share common ancestors with successive outgroups, including apes, placentals, mammals, synapsids, amniotes, vertebrates, etc., etc., etc.
Which lizard-like "missing link" are you referring to, specifically?

Sorry, but you're using your imagination again since you don't know Darwin's main characters. In fact, since Darwin didn't even know the common ancestor, then he left it to the reader to use his imagination as well! Not even Tolken did that! Tolken was much more specific than Darwin has ever been. So again, until Darwin knows his main characters, then no one else can know them either.

 

[Dark_Lite]

That logic doesn't even make sense. Darwin was responsible for the initial discovery of evolutionary theory but many, many other scientists throughout recent history have been responsible for building upon that theory and filling in the blanks.

 

[Mallon]

Sorry, but you're using your imagination again since you don't know Darwin's main characters. In fact, since Darwin didn't even know the common ancestor, then he left it to the reader to use his imagination as well! Not even Tolken did that! Tolken was much more specific than Darwin has ever been. So again, until Darwin knows his main characters, then no one else can know them either.

I don't understand what you're talking about. What do you mean by Darwin's "main characters"?

 

[peace4ever]

I don't understand what you're talking about. What do you mean by Darwin's "main characters"?

Darwin's main characters are the fictitious animals he claims that humans descended from. That's why one of his books is entitled "The Origin of the Species." But Darwin didn't know the origin of man or any other animal for that matter, since he couldn't even describe them! So he left that part blank and proceeded to tell us what those unknown characters could breed! Sorry, but you first have to be able to describe your characters to even know what kind of descendants they're capable of breeding. That's a no-brainer.

 

[Mallon]

Darwin's main characters are the fictitious animals he claims that humans descended from. That's why one of his books is entitled "The Origin of the Species." But Darwin didn't know the origin of man or any other animal for that matter, since he couldn't even describe them! So he left that part blank and proceeded to tell us what those unknown characters could breed! Sorry, but you first have to be able to describe your characters to even know what kind of descendants they're capable of breeding. That's a no-brainer.

That's silly. That's like saying I need to perfectly describe the appearance of my great-great-great-great grandfather before I can logically infer that I ever had one.

 

[peace4ever]

That's silly. That's like saying I need to perfectly describe the appearance of my great-great-great-great grandfather before I can logically infer that I ever had one.

If you claim that your great-great, great grandfather was anything other than human, then you'd absolutely better be able to describe him! Or don't you know if he was human? Since Darwin didn't describe his main characters, then our ancestors can be anything we imagine them to be. that's called science fiction, not science.

 

[Mallon]

If you claim that your great-great, great grandfather was anything other than human, then you'd absolutely better be able to describe him! Or don't you know if he was human? Since Darwin didn't describe his main characters, then our ancestors can be anything we imagine them to be. that's called science fiction, not science.

No our inferred ancestors cannot be anything we imagine them to be, as I explained in my reply to your thread here:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7372119/
Science allows us to constrain our inferences of common ancestry. This is why scientists unanimously agree that chimps are our closest living relatives and are not divided on the issue.

 

[peace4ever]

No our inferred ancestors cannot be anything we imagine them to be, as I explained in my reply to your thread here:

Science allows us to constrain our inferences of common ancestry. This is why scientists unanimously agree that chimps are our closest living relatives and are not divided on the issue.

"Inferences" is the key word. One doesn't infer reality, one observes reality. Inferences are deductions and deductions can only be as real or imaginary as a premise. thus, "If humans came from dogs, then one can infer that humans have similar traits to dogs." Or: "If dogs have traits similar to humans, then one can infer that humans came from dogs."

Both conclusions are as imaginary as the premise is. And even with a true premise, deductions can be false because they can always overlook other options. So unless the premise is observable reality, then it's as much science fiction as "if humans look like monkeys, then humans came from monkeys."

 

[Mallon]

"Inferences" is the key word. One doesn't infer reality, one observes reality. Inferences are deductions and deductions can only be as real or imaginary as a premise. thus, "If humans came from dogs, then one can infer that humans have similar traits to dogs." Or: "If dogs have traits similar to humans, then one can infer that humans came from dogs."

Both conclusions are as imaginary as the premise is. And even with a true premise, deductions can be false because they can always overlook other options. So unless the premise is observable reality, then it's as much science fiction as "if humans look like monkeys, then humans came from monkeys."

Have you ever observed an atom? Have you ever observed gravity (the force, not its effects)? Have you ever observed God?
Just because we cannot observe something directly, doesn't mean we cannot logically infer its existence. I'm surprised to hear a self-professed Christian so quickly do away with what cannot be observed directly. (Incidentally, speciation can be observed directly.)

 

[peace4ever]

Have you ever observed an atom? Have you ever observed gravity (the force, not its effects)? Have you ever observed God?
Just because we cannot observe something directly, doesn't mean we cannot logically infer its existence. I'm surprised to hear a self-professed Christian so quickly do away with what cannot be observed directly. (Incidentally, speciation can be observed directly.)

So then what you're saying is that the criteria for what's scientific is describing things that don't happen in reality and that no one in history can verify. Is that correct? If so, that's not only the definition of a fairy tale, that's the exact definition of a delusion.

But God's claims can be observed in reality every single day. Each animal breeds its own kind, the sun gives light by day, the moon and stars give light by night and are used to mark the months, seasons and years, and humans rule over the animals. So the bible describes reality, science invents reality.

So you'll have to come up with something better than a lack of evidence to prove your case.

 

[crawfish]

If you claim that your great-great, great grandfather was anything other than human, then you'd absolutely better be able to describe him! Or don't you know if he was human? Since Darwin didn't describe his main characters, then our ancestors can be anything we imagine them to be. that's called science fiction, not science.

We have seen speciation in a lab, many times. This is where a species produces another species, and the former cannot breed with the latter. Think about it this way: if someone, 100 years from now, not knowing any of this history, compared each species and found that they could not breed with each other, using your thinking there is no way that one could be the ancestor of the other. Yet we know they are.

 

[peace4ever]

We have seen speciation in a lab, many times. This is where a species produces another species, and the former cannot breed with the latter. Think about it this way: if someone, 100 years from now, not knowing any of this history, compared each species and found that they could not breed with each other, using your thinking there is no way that one could be the ancestor of the other. Yet we know they are.

We have also seen little people in the world, namely, dwarfs and midgets. By your reasoning, that makes "Lord Of the Rings true." So you'll have to come up with something better than that.

 

[crawfish]

We have also seen little people in the world, namely, dwarfs and midgets. By your reasoning, that makes "Lord Of the Rings true." So you'll have to come up with something better than that.

I'm just being nice to you, by the way. You might want to learn this stuff before going into the atheist boards; they are not your brothers and sisters in Christ and will not be nearly as kind.

 

[peace4ever]

I'm just being nice to you, by the way. You might want to learn this stuff before going into the atheist boards; they are not your brothers and sisters in Christ and will not be nearly as kind.

I appreciate your kindness. Since I've been to most atheists sites on the web, I know how they are and that the only refutations they have to my posts are statements such as; "You're a moron." That's the first sign that one cannot defend his position. But the bible tells us about them so all they do is prove that the bible is true.

 

[Mallon]

So then what you're saying is that the criteria for what's scientific is describing things that don't happen in reality and that no one in history can verify. Is that correct? If so, that's not only the definition of a fairy tale, that's the exact definition of a delusion.

Don't be silly. We can and have verified evolution. We do it every time we make a fossil discovery that bears out what the theory predicts. Clearly you refuse to even entertain the idea (Jeremiah 5:21), so I'm not going to argue it any further with you. If you want to be like Luther, who refused to believe the earth went about the sun because he favoured his literalist interpretation of the Bible over the testimony of God's own creation, then so be it. I can only lead a horse to water.

 

[peace4ever]

Don't be silly. We can and have verified evolution. We do it every time we make a fossil discovery that bears out what the theory predicts. Clearly you refuse to even entertain the idea (Jeremiah 5:21), so I'm not going to argue it any further with you. If you want to be like Luther, who refused to believe the earth went about the sun because he favoured his literalist interpretation of the Bible over the testimony of God's own creation, then so be it. I can only lead a horse to water.

Sorry but all evolutionary scientists do is make up stories about the skulls and bones they find. That's all the story of evolution is.

In fact, I watched a "documentary" on the History channel not too long ago called "Clash of the Cavemen." No, it wasn't prpoduced by Stephen Spielberg it was called a "documentary" about a neanderthal woman who was abducted. Now how anyone can know that a neanderthal woman was abducted is anyone's guess. But since the imagination is considered evidence in science, then this story fit right in.

But there was one fact that they presented; they were surprised that they found zero neanderthal DNA in human DNA. Well duh! The only people who were surprised at that were people who considered themselves experts in biology. But the person with common sense who knows why humans can only breed humans weren't surprised at all.

So the stories that scientists make up about people who never existed replete with Tarzan outfits and new names are as imaginary as "planet Of The Apes." So claiming that a story of someone's imagination is a fact is as deceitful as thinking that calling humans animals means that one can breed the other.

 

[pgp_protector]

If you claim that your great-great, great grandfather was anything other than human, then you'd absolutely better be able to describe him! Or don't you know if he was human? Since Darwin didn't describe his main characters, then our ancestors can be anything we imagine them to be. that's called science fiction, not science.

Ok Describe your Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandmother.
What color eyes did she have ?
How Tall was She ?
How much did she weigh ?
What was her BMI at her Time Of Death.
If you can't answer this then please retract your statment, or admit you don't have a Great Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandmother, and that you don't exist.